In this edition of Court Judgements, we look at the Supreme Court’s judgement that courts should award just and fair compensation, even if the aggrieved parties claim lesser amount under the Motor Vehicle Act, Kerala HC’s ruling that cartoonists are part and parcel of Press and Media and are entitled to Freedom of Expression and Speech, Bombay HC’s order that in cases of gang rape, commission of offence by one accused is sufficient to convict others who facilitate the commission as co-accused, among others.
Kerala HC: Cartoonists are part and parcel of Press and Media and are entitled to Freedom of Expression and Speech
In the case of Mammen Verghese & Ors (Petitioners) vs. State of Kerala (Prosecution), the High Court (HC) of Kerala held that the Cartoonists are part and parcel of press and media and are entitled to freedom of expression and speech under Article 19 (1) (a) of Constitution of India. Thereby, they have the freedom to express their opinions, ideas, and creativity through cartoons, caricatures, and other forms of visual art, subject to reasonable restrictions.
The facts of the case were that on 15 August 2017, the 70th Independence Day of India, the Malayalam Daily newspaper named “Malayala Manorama” published a cartoon. It contained the number ‘70′ in which, below the top parallel portion of the number ‘7’, the National Flag was picturised and the zero (‘0’) was picturised as the father of the Nation ‘Mahatma’ in an artistic manner. A complaint was filed in the local police station by one of the party members of Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) on the grounds that the parallel top portion of the number “7” is treated as a black border and therefore it is an insult to the national flag and the father of the nation. Subsequently, the proceedings against the petitioners were initiated before the First-Class Magistrate Court, Kozhikode, under the National Honours Act (NHA), 1971. These were challenged by the Petitioners before the HC.
The HC held that the cartoon is one of beautiful picturisation of the 70th Independence Anniversary for which the cartoonist deserves encomium. Therefore, it is a far-fetched imagination of the prosecution that it constitutes the offence of “Insult” under NHA. Insult refers to derogatory or demeaning remarks, comments or actions intended to offend or humiliate someone, lower someone’s self-esteem or dignity or provoke anger or hostility or show contempt or disrespect. In contrast, the cartoon does not carry any such remarks so as to constitute the offence as contested. In addition, the newspaper has also published editorials in which several historians, writers, film directors, and others wrote about the importance of Independence and the achievement of India during the 70 years after Independence.
Accordingly, the court allowed the petition and quashed proceedings before the first-class magistrate.
Bombay HC: In Gang Rape, commission of offence by one accused is sufficient to convict others who facilitate the commission as co-accused
In a batch of petitions filed before it by the accused in a case relating to Gang Rape, the Bombay HC held that the commission of the offence of rape by one of the accused is sufficient to convict the other accused who facilitate the commission of the offence as liable for the same offence.
The facts of the case were that a man and woman, who are friends, went together to a temple near the village Ghanta Chowki in the Chandrapur district of Maharashtra. After offering prayers, they came out of the temple and were sitting under a tree when three men came and demanded money from them with the claim that they were from the forest department. Afterwards, they brought another friend of theirs into the scene. After this, two of the men took the woman forcefully behind the tree and raped her, while another two men overpowered her friend and thereby facilitated the commission of rape by the other two. Hearing the cry of the woman, a forest guard came to the rescue, while all the four accused men ran away from the site. Subsequently, all four men were arrested and were held guilty of the commission of rape, along with other crimes. This was contested by the convicted before the HC.
Among several things that were dealt by the court, the primary issue was whether the two other convicted men, who facilitated the commission of rape, can be held guilty of the offence of rape. The prosecution argued before the court saying that the commission of rape by the two men who overpowered the victim’s friend did not share the common intention of raping the victim with the other two who committed the same offence. But the court held that the facts of the case make it very clear that these two men did not allow the victim’s friend to rescue the victim, they thrashed him and overpowered him. Further, the victim cried aloud and pleaded with the accused to release her. But even this was not accepted and in the presence of the two who overpowered the victim’s friend, the rape had taken place. Hence, the court held that these facts are sufficient material to establish the commission of the offence of rape by the two men, though they have not committed the offence. Accordingly, the court upheld the sessions court judgment which held all 4 men guilty.
Kerala HC: Media is entitled to discuss about book available in the public domain against a religious leader
In the case of Prakash & Anr (Petitioners) vs. Vandana & State of Kerala (Respondents), the Kerala HC held that the media is entitled to discuss a book which is available in the public domain, written against the religious leader Mata Amritanandamayi.
The facts of the case were that a defamation case was registered against the petitioners, who are Chief Executive Director and Executive Directors in the Reporter Channel, accusing them of defaming Mata Amritanandamayi and her Math by telecasting several negative aspects about her and Math, based on the book titled ‘Holy Hell’, written by a foreign author called Gail Tredwell. Allegedly, the book accused Amritanandamayi Math as a source point of sex, black money, gold, and narcotics, etc. Based on these contents, the reporter channel aired a programme called ‘Big Story’, wherein the issues covered in the book were discussed in a debate organized by the channel with some remarks passed against Mata Amritanandamayi. This was contested by Respondent No. 1, who claimed herself as the ardent devote of Mata Amritanandamayi, as leading to the defamation of Mata Amritanandamayi.
The court held that the book was freely available for anyone to obtain a copy, including on Amazon. Further, neither Math nor any others have taken any legal proceedings about it. Furthermore, the respondent has not raised any contention about the author or publishers of the book, or even the people who have discussed it in the media channel. But her grievance is only about the media channel which has telecasted a programme about it. The court held that being considered as the fourth estate of democracy, the media is entitled to discuss such things in the public domain and see that the contents of it are reached to people. Accordingly, the petition was allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners before the first-class magistrate were quashed.
SC: Court should award just and fair compensation, even if the aggrieved parties claim lesser amount
In the case of Kavita Balothiya & Ors. vs. Santosh Kumar & Anr, the Supreme Court (SC) held that in cases of motor accidents, the courts are bound to award just and fair compensation even if the compensation claimed by the claimants is of a lesser amount.
The facts of the case were that the Appellants initially claimed compensation of Rs. 38,34,000 for damages resulting from a motor vehicle accident. The Fourth Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gwalior awarded them Rs. 19,55,250. However, upon appeal, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior increased the compensation to Rs. 28,00,375. However, it limited the additional amount to Rs. 4,00,000, which is based on the appellants’ initial claim in the appeal. This was challenged in the SC.
Citing its previous judgments in similar cases, courts emphasized that it is mandated to award “fair and just compensation” under the Motor Vehicles Act, which is a beneficial legislation, even if the award amount claimed by the parties is lesser than the amount determined by the court. Accordingly, the SC held that the Appellants were entitled to the full amount determined by the High Court (Rs. 28,00,375) rather than just the additional Rs. 4,00,000, in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal’s award.
